oh gosh. *facepalm*. I love you too Ken. :) ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Hohhof To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant>
LOL, you said “desktop”. That’s so cute, in a 1999 kind of way. I think you mean “homescreen”. Or do you store your documents in that picture of a file cabinet, and use the little animated dog and paper clip when you need help? OMG, I’ll bet you say “click” instead of “tap” and “swipe”. OMG, OMG, LOL, LOL. From: CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant> isn't that like having 200 files open on your desktop? or 200 paper files cluttering your desk? you should put some stuff away every now-and-then.... ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Hammett To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant> But how many other modern web sites use the same resources? I used to keep a sea of tabs (200+), but once I get near 50 anymore, my system chokes. Time to go to 32 GB on my desktops! ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Vlad Sedov" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:21:29 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant> Oh, no doubt. I like my sea of tabs too. But we're talking about a radio web interface. I don't care how much RAM your PC has, using 10x more resources to display the same stuff is a huge waste. Consider how many lower-powered gadgets are used to manage radios.. It has to be nimble. Vlad On 1/21/2015 9:17 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: I routinely have over 8 gigs of RAM chewed up by my browsers, sometimes almost 14 GB... You need big boy PCs to be on the Internet anymore. ;-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Vlad Sedov" mailto:[email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:15:24 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant> I just did a quick memory usage test on our NMS box... Firefox (google.com): 76MB in RAM Firefox with Canopy 450 AP interface open, logged in: 84.5MB.. a gain of less than 10MB of RAM usage. Firefox with ePMP AP open, logged in: 170-185MB in RAM. over 100MB RAM usage, to display the same stuff. Why? IE (google.com): 64MB in RAM IE with Canopy 450 AP interface open: 53MB (less than google!) IE with ePMP AP interface open: 138MB Similar results with Chrome.. About 75MB difference. eh. vlad On 1/21/2015 8:56 AM, Nate Burke wrote: Not sure what it is, but in my case, the Machine did make a difference in load time. Be interested in others feedback as well. Do you see similar results? Are my results bad? Do older/slower machines take longer? On 1/21/2015 8:52 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: >But Seriously, it's a web page displaying TEXT AND NUMBERS, why should it need an i7 on the client side for that? No shit. So you're saying it's clock speed? I've no idea what my phone does but I would be kind of surprised if the Galaxy S3 and my phone vary too much in CPU (I think they're both 2013 products). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Nate Burke <[email protected]> wrote: Just to sorta provide some more data from the original Thread, it seems that CPU Makes a huge difference in how fast the pages load.� I ran a test from the office to the same EPMP radio using 3 different machines. On my 6 core I7 Desktop.� Initial web load takes 4-5 seconds.� And login takes another 4-5 seconds. On an old Dualcore Xeon, it's 10 seconds for initial load, and 10 seconds to login On my atom netbook, it was 20 seconds for initial Load, 10 seconds to login, and another 10 seconds for the graph to display and all the red '!' marks to disappear (they were on all left menu items) I know people just said 'well just get a faster laptop'. But Seriously, it's a web page displaying TEXT AND NUMBERS, why should it need an i7 on the client side for that? On 1/21/2015 8:34 AM, Vlad Sedov wrote: Yes they did, and it was definitely for the better. Most of the improvements were based on some sort of real world feedback.. That's how you make a good UI :D vlad On 1/21/2015 1:29 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote: � I do recall they did completely redesign the interface, due to our request, after the initial complaints of v1....� : / � ----- Original Message ----- From: Vlad Sedov To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant> This has been one of our biggest complaints from day one. The interface, while it has gotten slightly more usable, is still complete garbage. It's unpredictable, slow, and inconsistent.. Let alone the features that just don't work. Why on earth did they not just stick with a field-tested, fast, usable interface from the Canopy line? Nobody buys a radio for it's slide-out menus and pretty HTML5 crap. We need, fast, intuitive, consistent.. Forget the shiny. grr Vlad On 1/20/2015 10:57 AM, Nate Burke wrote: > Ok, Cambium, this is a little sad.� My Field Laptop, a Lenovo S10-3t, > Atom Processor with Windows 8.1 cannot load the EPMP WEB Pages in a > timely manner.� We're talking 40-60 seconds for initial load, and > 20-30 seconds per screen refresh/menu change.� Since I'm going to have > to go to the boss, and tell him that I need a new laptop to do any > field troubleshooting for these new radios, what are the minimum > system specs for a machine to view the EPMP Screens?� Unless Cambium > is going to get their Web interface under control as of Yesterday. > > They still swear that the GUI was all developed in house and not > purchased (something I still can't believe).� I'd like to know who the > engineers/managers are who signed off on that design.� I can only > imaging that there was a group of guys sitting around the conference > table, watching the presentation on the GUI on the projector up front, > all nodding their heads in agreement, "I think this is a wonderful > layout, the field tech's won't mind waiting a couple extra minutes for > the pages to load so they can look this pretty!!" > > I think that Cambium should step up and get engineers from ALL aspects > of product development out into the field.� 40 seconds waiting for the > page to load is fine when you're sitting in the office, but not when > you have the laptop balanced on a stack of firewood in the freezing > rain trying to get to the monitoring page to see why a radio isn't > linking up.� I think that every WISP on this list would be more than > happy to host an engineer for a day. Heck, even if they go into the > parking lot and assemble it on the tailgate of someone's Pickup, > they'll get some idea of what we experience. > > I have a feeling that if all steps of the Dev process took a week in > the field, We'd have a radio that had a GUI that responded instantly > on any device, and radios that assembled and mounted (and unmounted) > with 1 gloved hand. > > </rant> > Nate
